We can no longer deny the drive to diversify data management technology that began in the mid-90s. The aspiration to achieve one single and simple database management system has died. I grew up with the advent of commercial relational databases in the late 80s and early 90s. At the time, the promise was clear: you could store everything in a relational database that was carefully modeled and expandable. And in doing so, you acquired the ability to access, govern and securely manage every bit of data in a single technology environment. Most companies decided on a relational database standard and ported some or all of their applications towards that single database backend. All the principles of good architecture – including cost and skill optimization played out – until they didn’t. All seemed swimming until one of my clients – a major European railway operator – wanted to geo code every bit of equipment and every centimeter of their railway network. As hard as we tried, we couldn’t meet the client’s demands well with a relational database. The advent of spatial data management systems came to the rescue. Questions like ‘What is the total book value of all assets deployed within …